And I know you are just giving an example to make a point so I'm not personally attacking you or anything, just saying, that from my personal view of homophobia, considering them mutants seems homophobic. Granted if homosexuality is indeed a genetic mutation, then I will say that your wording is correct although I think a lot of people, regardless, would find it offensive.

It's been linked to the same gene that makes certain females have a higher rate of fertility. Not all women have it, and that gene (Xq28) when slightly mutated can express itself as homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, the occasional gay person is outweighed by having a population of females with greater fertility.

It's been linked to the same gene that makes certain females have a higher rate of fertility. Not all women have it, and that gene (Xq28) when slightly mutated can express itself as homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, the occasional gay person is outweighed by having a population of females with greater fertility.

Thanks for the lesson, I had no idea this was known. I thought it was still a debate about being born gay vs. choosing to be gay, although I always figured people were probably born that way without knowing any reason why.

It's been linked to the same gene that makes certain females have a higher rate of fertility. Not all women have it, and that gene (Xq28) when slightly mutated can express itself as homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, the occasional gay person is outweighed by having a population of females with greater fertility.

Thanks for the lesson, I had no idea this was known. I thought it was still a debate about being born gay vs. choosing to be gay, although I always figured people were probably born that way without knowing any reason why.

If I remember correctly, that was based on a pool of 4500ish people. I'm sure there are homsexuals that lack that mutation. Based on being able to not feel pain or the ability to reduce a fever with only a placebo effect, I don't see why someone convincing themselves that they're gay would be considered a huge stretch.

It's been linked to the same gene that makes certain females have a higher rate of fertility. Not all women have it, and that gene (Xq28) when slightly mutated can express itself as homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, the occasional gay person is outweighed by having a population of females with greater fertility.

Thanks for the lesson, I had no idea this was known. I thought it was still a debate about being born gay vs. choosing to be gay, although I always figured people were probably born that way without knowing any reason why.

There's a lot of work to be done. There's some speculation too that male homosexuality is genetically different from female homosexuality. I find all of this fascinating and worthy of further study and scrutiny. I would hate to think that that genetic research is chilled or outright rejected based on identity politics issues. Any of us that want to have a meaningful dialogue on this underlying issue shouldn't be in fear of being labeled a "homophobe", as is evidenced here.

I would hate to think that that genetic research is chilled or outright rejected based on identity politics issues. Any of us that want to have a meaningful dialogue on this underlying issue shouldn't be in fear of being labeled a "homophobe", as is evidenced here.

you, I have no problems with scientific research, it was your facetious example I had a problem with.

I would hate to think that that genetic research is chilled or outright rejected based on identity politics issues. Any of us that want to have a meaningful dialogue on this underlying issue shouldn't be in fear of being labeled a "homophobe", as is evidenced here.

you, I have no problems with scientific research, it was your facetious example I had a problem with.

And this post is an example of what is NOT tolerated on this forum, for several reasons. You don't get to personally attack someone. You also don't get to label an example "facetious" simply because you disagree with it. Even if it is an objectively, demonstrably BAD example, you don't get to shut down discussion by labeling it facetious. Any more posts like this, and you will lose your P/R posting privileges. That isn't how we do things here.

Logged

"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

I say this respectfully, but how was it either "facetious" or "demonstrably BAD"? It's legit. It's essentially me. I can understand why "mutant" would be inflammatory, but it's not factually incorrect.

I DO think sexuality is a genetic state, and I don't believe it is as simple as "recessive" or "dominant". It's why there are trends with respect to (at least) gay males; they are predominantly in families with multiple sons, not only children. In those families, they are predominantly the youngest (or younger) sons. This is fascinating on multiple levels, and can help us with other sexual conditions, as well as with non-sexual ones. It's cutting edge science, and research shouldn't be curtailed out of fears that "someone might be offended".

Ill be honest, the term mutant threw me off. I didn't know anything about homosexual mutations and my thought was that it was used derogatory. Now with some more understanding, I do think it's a poor choice of words just because mutant is typically referred to negatively, but I don't think the statement is outright homophobic. Sort of like the guerilla discussion in another thread.

a long (way long) piece about political correctness clashes, Milo, Pewdiepie, etc that I thought was very good. I've followed this person's writing for years and it's always very thoughtful and there are things about empathy in this that I care very much about.

I say this respectfully, but how was it either "facetious" or "demonstrably BAD"? It's legit. It's essentially me. I can understand why "mutant" would be inflammatory, but it's not factually incorrect.

I DO think sexuality is a genetic state, and I don't believe it is as simple as "recessive" or "dominant". It's why there are trends with respect to (at least) gay males; they are predominantly in families with multiple sons, not only children. In those families, they are predominantly the youngest (or younger) sons. This is fascinating on multiple levels, and can help us with other sexual conditions, as well as with non-sexual ones. It's cutting edge science, and research shouldn't be curtailed out of fears that "someone might be offended".

I read a study that theorized that a mother's immune system attacked male fetuses in certain circumstances because it thought that it was an "Invader"(for lack of better terms) after the first male child. It was a few years ago, and my memory is sketchy at best on the details. However, I think that they ended up debunking the theory afterwards. I'm far from certain, though. Is this what you're referring to?

I think there are two different points being made here right?1 - thoughts - no one can control your thoughts2 - actions - society has set expectations

So you can be a bigot through your thoughts, but not through your actions.

Well, basically, though I think there is a third: we ought to go a lot easier on the "BIGOT" stuff. One man's bigotry is another man's scientific inquiry. I think "bigotry" ought to be constrained to just actions.

I think there are two different points being made here right?1 - thoughts - no one can control your thoughts2 - actions - society has set expectations

So you can be a bigot through your thoughts, but not through your actions.

Well, basically, though I think there is a third: we ought to go a lot easier on the "BIGOT" stuff. One man's bigotry is another man's scientific inquiry. I think "bigotry" ought to be constrained to just actions.

Well I kind of differ, if internally you think or believe lets say that gays are bad people, but you never take action on that. I still think you are a bigot, but the reality is that I'd never know that so I would never come to that conclusion either. But theoretically, to me, I would still think so.

If you say "bad people" I suppose you're right; but I'm talking about somewhere in between. I was called a homophobe merely because I suggested a mechanism for a person being gay, not because of their character.

If you say "bad people" I suppose you're right; but I'm talking about somewhere in between. I was called a homophobe merely because I suggested a mechanism for a person being gay, not because of their character.

That's different I agree. Like the mutant wording. With some more understanding of the mechanism, I don't think that's a homophobic thought although initially I had thought so because I thought you meant it in a negative connotation and not knowing there was a literal relationship there.

I don't think I baited anybody, but that was the point; we DON'T know, and we can't be throwing around words like "homophobe" and "racist" until we do. It's like dog shit; you can scrape it off your shoe, but the stink still lingers. And yet, we seem to have no problem tarring and feathering people with those words. What makes that okay? Why don't you (collective) have an obligation to make sure it's right - and not your knee-jerk reaction - before you potentially ruin someone's life? I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether some douche on the interwebs - me - is a "homophobe" or not, but do that to a celebrity who's career depends on units moved, and it has deep ramifications.

I didn't say there wasn't "outrage". "Outrage" is fine; it's when any and all consequences are deemed fine in order to make your political point. I don't see anyone trying to ruin Bruce Springsteen's career over his overt political leanings.

You weren't here in North Carolina last year when Bruce was the first big-name artist/act/event to cancel an appearance here over HB2 (the bathroom bill). He was practically burned in effigy here by the rednecks.

I'm sort of playing with you guys, but if one has a genetic mutation - and we all do to some degree or another - they are "mutants". I didn't intend that depth of argument with the original example, but it still shows you're not reading the underlying premise, or my feelings about the people whose identity we're discussing, you're just worried about word choice.

Everyone has genetic mutations, and by that definition we are ALL mutants. Singling out a single subsection because of one particular mutation and calling them mutants, with the implication everyone else is "normal" is, by definition, discriminatory.

I don't think I baited anybody, but that was the point; we DON'T know, and we can't be throwing around words like "homophobe" and "racist" until we do. It's like dog shit; you can scrape it off your shoe, but the stink still lingers. And yet, we seem to have no problem tarring and feathering people with those words. What makes that okay? Why don't you (collective) have an obligation to make sure it's right - and not your knee-jerk reaction - before you potentially ruin someone's life? I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether some douche on the interwebs - me - is a "homophobe" or not, but do that to a celebrity who's career depends on units moved, and it has deep ramifications.

I can't figure out exactly what causes someone like a celebrity to be fair game (meaning are they too well known) where the general public actually gets joy out of demonizing them to the point where they are actively participating in ruining someone's career. In this age of social media if someone famous makes a comment and someone takes it slightly the wrong way and starts this game of digital telephone suddenly this out of context comments gets turned into that celebrity being called all kinds of things you've previously mentioned. I can't figure out if the demonization over nothing that the general public does is fulfilling some twisted schadenfreude or if, as a collective, there is actually some offense going on. Or maybe it's both, with the offended people getting false information since a story has blown out of control but still wanting to bring down whatever person/celebrity that originally said the comment.

I'm not saying that people of fame don't say genuinely off-color things but we're pretty much at a zero tolerance policy in the public forum and I personally find that very scary.

I'm sort of playing with you guys, but if one has a genetic mutation - and we all do to some degree or another - they are "mutants". I didn't intend that depth of argument with the original example, but it still shows you're not reading the underlying premise, or my feelings about the people whose identity we're discussing, you're just worried about word choice.

Everyone has genetic mutations, and by that definition we are ALL mutants. Singling out a single subsection because of one particular mutation and calling them mutants, with the implication everyone else is "normal" is, by definition, discriminatory.

Then you can't say anything about ANY genetic mutation, then, if the automatic implication is that everyone else is "normal". I'm not at all looking to "single anyone out". This is content neutral and independent of the subject matter we're asking about. I'm merely saying that at this point simply TALKING about certain things is de facto ammunition for the easily offended to justify their existence.

Notwithstanding the question of why we should care about Demi Lovato's, DNA, the backlash is ridiculous. One comment was, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, "You're one percent African? So why are you white?" Huh?

I don't think I baited anybody, but that was the point; we DON'T know, and we can't be throwing around words like "homophobe" and "racist" until we do. It's like dog shit; you can scrape it off your shoe, but the stink still lingers. And yet, we seem to have no problem tarring and feathering people with those words. What makes that okay? Why don't you (collective) have an obligation to make sure it's right - and not your knee-jerk reaction - before you potentially ruin someone's life? I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether some douche on the interwebs - me - is a "homophobe" or not, but do that to a celebrity who's career depends on units moved, and it has deep ramifications.

I can't figure out exactly what causes someone like a celebrity to be fair game (meaning are they too well known) where the general public actually gets joy out of demonizing them to the point where they are actively participating in ruining someone's career. In this age of social media if someone famous makes a comment and someone takes it slightly the wrong way and starts this game of digital telephone suddenly this out of context comments gets turned into that celebrity being called all kinds of things you've previously mentioned. I can't figure out if the demonization over nothing that the general public does is fulfilling some twisted schadenfreude or if, as a collective, there is actually some offense going on. Or maybe it's both, with the offended people getting false information since a story has blown out of control but still wanting to bring down whatever person/celebrity that originally said the comment.

I'm not saying that people of fame don't say genuinely off-color things but we're pretty much at a zero tolerance policy in the public forum and I personally find that very scary.

What's REALLY scary is that the "zero tolerance" is not only present, but encouraged and commended. It's put out there as if it's a GOOD thing. Censorship much? Fascism much (since that seems to be the accusation du jour)?

I don't think I baited anybody, but that was the point; we DON'T know, and we can't be throwing around words like "homophobe" and "racist" until we do. It's like dog shit; you can scrape it off your shoe, but the stink still lingers. And yet, we seem to have no problem tarring and feathering people with those words. What makes that okay? Why don't you (collective) have an obligation to make sure it's right - and not your knee-jerk reaction - before you potentially ruin someone's life? I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether some douche on the interwebs - me - is a "homophobe" or not, but do that to a celebrity who's career depends on units moved, and it has deep ramifications.

I can't figure out exactly what causes someone like a celebrity to be fair game (meaning are they too well known) where the general public actually gets joy out of demonizing them to the point where they are actively participating in ruining someone's career. In this age of social media if someone famous makes a comment and someone takes it slightly the wrong way and starts this game of digital telephone suddenly this out of context comments gets turned into that celebrity being called all kinds of things you've previously mentioned. I can't figure out if the demonization over nothing that the general public does is fulfilling some twisted schadenfreude or if, as a collective, there is actually some offense going on. Or maybe it's both, with the offended people getting false information since a story has blown out of control but still wanting to bring down whatever person/celebrity that originally said the comment.

I'm not saying that people of fame don't say genuinely off-color things but we're pretty much at a zero tolerance policy in the public forum and I personally find that very scary.

What's REALLY scary is that the "zero tolerance" is not only present, but encouraged and commended. It's put out there as if it's a GOOD thing. Censorship much? Fascism much (since that seems to be the accusation du jour)?

This is a scary trend that unfortunately is becoming the norm in America. I think we are turning into a fascist nation and it's not because of the guy with bad hair sitting in the White House.

So would you say that Germany now (which outlaws promoting Nazi propaganda) is more fascist now than in the 1930s?

I can't speak for kaos2900, but for me, I can't answer that. It's not just "one issue". I can wrap my arms around that German requirement (and can articulate a constitutional argument for it, though it's not really a strong one). I'm more talking about a general attitude or belief that somehow MY beliefs, MY intolerance is okay, but yours isn't. We either all get to speak our mind or we don't. This notion that somehow the "popular opinion" carries weight only works when yours is the popular opinion. I have no beef with the LGBT agenda, per se, but I love how when 35% of the population said they were in favor of equal rights for homosexuals, including gay marriage, the population were Neanderthals (my word), but now that it's upwards of 55% or more, all of a sudden they've had some enlightening.

Progress isn't always smooth, neat and clean. I think this is a sort of revolution for the press and media, and all that we are talking about is related. Trump's not nearly articulate enough (or self-aware enough) to present the argument, but I think a lot of his "Fake News" is legit, not in the sense that "CNN made that shit up" - they most certainly did NOT - but in the sense that we've so blurred the notion of a "fact" - a discrete, provable, piece of information - so much with a firehose of competing pieces of quasi-editorial information packets that masquerade as facts. INCLUDING the sort of bullying and message control that we're talking about right now. "Intolerance of intolerance" is every bit as much "fake news" as Trump saying that Hillary gave 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia.

So would you say that Germany now (which outlaws promoting Nazi propaganda) is more fascist now than in the 1930s?

I can't speak for kaos2900, but for me, I can't answer that. It's not just "one issue". I can wrap my arms around that German requirement (and can articulate a constitutional argument for it, though it's not really a strong one). I'm more talking about a general attitude or belief that somehow MY beliefs, MY intolerance is okay, but yours isn't. We either all get to speak our mind or we don't. This notion that somehow the "popular opinion" carries weight only works when yours is the popular opinion.

In sort of a lateral thought there was something that happened recently at ESPN that, according to a local sports talk show, caused a bit of public ire. There was some top 10 sports moments of the day and they showed some kids making crazy basketball shots, dunks, etc. The number one was a group of kids picking up a disabled kid and helping him make a basket. You know, the sort of heartwarming stuff that's fairly inoffensive. Apparently the host said something like "how come that got number one?" because she felt that one of the earlier plays was better. Sort of an innocuous comment but it irked some people that said she was being insensitive to the disabled kid. After explaining the story one of the hosts of the sports talk show was saying how disgusting her comment was and that she should, at minimum, be suspended from her show for a few weeks. Over that? Seriously? She didn't come out and call the kid a retard or something similar, just expressed her opinion. I was taken aback at how knee-jerky we, and especially corporations from the PR damage control aspect, have become over something as minor as this. When you're calling for someone's job or something that affects them personally maybe we should step back and really ask ourselves "am I going overboard with my reaction?".

I think part of the issue is campus is like your home. These students LIVE on campus. If someone came to your house and started bashing everything you believed in and saying things you find offensive - wouldn't you want to kick them out?

I think part of the issue is campus is like your home. These students LIVE on campus. If someone came to your house and started bashing everything you believed in and saying things you find offensive - wouldn't you want to kick them out?

Are we talking about a physical bashing here? That's what seems to happen if you have a different view these days on some campuses.

And a campus is not a home, that's your dorm. Which of course if someone was coming to my dorm to speak, I would feel like I'd want them out, but they are going to an open forum on campus in all these scenarios I have heard about.

I think part of the issue is campus is like your home. These students LIVE on campus. If someone came to your house and started bashing everything you believed in and saying things you find offensive - wouldn't you want to kick them out?

Yes. But if they were a guest of my roommates then we'd have to work something out.

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson